Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

Governor Palin

September 15, 2008

Friends,

Two weeks ago, conservatives let out a big cheer as we learned who John McCain has chosen as his running mate.

The cheering hasn’t stopped since.

Since the announcement, Governor Palin have energized Republicans across the nation and sent the Obama campaign into a tailspin.

Michael Reagan even said that Governor Palin is the next Reagan.

The Left has a different response. Barack Obama and his allies have unleashed a barrage of despicable smears and attacks on Governor Palin’s record, her background, and even her family. Obama has even implied that Governor Palin is a “pig.” There is debate if that is what he meant but as the video of his comments demonstrates, his liberal audience clearly took it as a reference to Governor Palin. The hateful speech from Obama must stop.

Get the truth about Sarah Palin by ordering her biography, Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska’s Political Establishment Upside Down, FREE with Townhall Magazine now.

The mainstream media has joined in the attacks. They have failed to separate truth from rumor and smear. They have applied a double-standard against Gov. Palin that no other candidate would have to endure. Just this past week, ABC’s Charlie Gibson looked down his nose in condescending fashion and mocked Palin’s seriousness as a candidate for Vice President.

So far Gov. Palin has fought back against the attacks, but the attacks will continue. The Left can’t afford for you to know the real Sarah Palin — they have to create a fictional story if they are going to defeat the biggest breath of fresh air to hit the national scene in decades.

source:

Jonathan Garthwaite
Editor-in-Chief, Townhall.com

For my part I am not at all happy with the implied name calling. I am also not happy when we who are against Obama are automatically classified racist. I oppose  Obama for many reasons. His policy’s will destroy this nation, and quite possibly lead to full blown civil war. His personal associations are more than suspect: Criminals, racist preachers, and known unrepentant terrorist’s are but a few that I simply cannot allow to be brushed aside. It is said that “birds of a feather flock together.” Do we really want somebody like that as our President?

Do we genuinely want a person that has sworn to uphold the Constitution but has regularly used his power to try and undermine our inalienable rights? Do we really want a person with his track record as our President?

I think not!

An Unknown running for President!

August 28, 2008

Friends, Coloradans, Countrymen! Lend me your ears, for an (almost) unknown (outside EMS circles) man among men is running for President of these United States of America!

A man of immense integrity  and strength, he tells Flight Nurses where to go! As well as the occasional Paramedic, Police Officer, Sheriff, and Fire Chiefs! Most often because they are lost, but that is a subject for another day! 🙂

My friends, this is the man that you want when things get tough! Such as when he was doing a ride along with me, and a rather large drunk at the old Jeffco Detox decided that I would look much better if my nose was sticking out of the back of my head. I simply looked at Chris, and said “Sick’Em!.”  A single glance at Chris, and things with the drunk suddenly became easier.

I also know the mans family, and his Father ( May he rest in peace for all eternity, and Mother have always been proud of this country’s heritage. Heck! I mean, his Father used Browning shotguns to hunt with!

Chris Smith

for

President

Yes, this is posted in jest. But in all seriousness folks? I can think of a lot worse people being President of these not so United States of America. I could start with Barak Obama, and John McCain.

My name is Patrick Sperry

Once upon a time I was a passing fair Paramedic from Saint Anthony’s Paramedic Program, Cycle 32… God bless you Gerry, where ever you are!

For some reason, I can’t find a link about the Father of Pre-Hospital Emergency Medicine right now. I suppose that it is the tears in my eyes. In any case? Vote for Chris Smith for President of the United States of America! Hell, Tom Tancredo doesn’t even answer emails any more…

Income Redistribution: Bailing out states

August 15, 2008

Capital flow, the minutia of macroeconomics that gives the science its appeal, is the key to economic growth. Communities compete with incentives including reduced taxes and discounted land with high capacity infrastructure to attract new capital flow for job creation. The trade off is that the tax base generated by the new industry will offset the initial cost of infrastructure and reduced tax revenues. This mode of operation extends to the state level as well, albeit on a larger scale.

However, state governments often appear bi-polar, with an Economic Development Division promoting the state as an excellent environment for investment while the Department of Revenue—at the behest of the state legislature—seeks to maximize the revenue from businesses. Michigan is a perfect case study, with its “Michigan Golf” radio promotions touting the state as a vacation destination while the business media reports on its one-state recession and the economic mismanagement of Democrat Gov. Jennifer Granholm. The taxation and regulation regimen proposed by Granholm and codified by the Michigan Legislature has spurred the flow of economic and intellectual capital away from Michigan over the last eight years, yielding increased unemployment, increased demand for public assistance and increased budget deficits.

For the better part of two decades business schools have drilled students in the portability of capital in information-driven economies. There are only two impediments to capital flow: lack of natural resources and the possibility of asset confiscation by local authorities. By their rhetoric, we know that Granholm of Michigan and Gov. David Paterson of New York have no qualms about wealth redistribution, but they don’t have the tools (or the guts) necessary to take it to the extreme of, say, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Instead, they will beseech Congress to increase its benevolence upon their respective states by increasing taxes on the whole of the country. Their political calculus is simple: Increase the regulatory and tax burden across the entire country, and then their respective states won’t look so bad.

source

Energy, and sheeps clothing

August 12, 2008

Isn’t it interesting to watch the current political show? Green dyed liberals are seemingly jumping all over each other to ave the wishes of the people. That said, this is about energy. Be it electrical, gas, or petroleum based. Those that were oh so “green” appear to really be green now, as in the nausea induced by sea sickness. I mean, it’s the economy stupid! Or don’t you remember that Congressperson? After all is said and done the “Soccer Moms” are more concerned about getting their kids to the Soccer game, and feeding the curtain climbers than about this new religion where endangered Owls just are not in any danger of extinction, and Polar Bear numbers are at all time highs. Heck? They even have figured out that there was tar on beaches before humans drilled for oil for goodness’s sakes!

The hypocracisy is simply asstounding. I mean, really, the only thing that I can remember that even comes close to the current political debauchery, was when I watched our President say on television “I am not a crook!” Yeah, right…

Look folks, Steve over at Stiff Right Jab can certainly explain International Economics better than I can. After all, he teaches it. I am a specialist in Management Economics having to do with Pre- Hospital Emergency Medical Services. That’s right, I am one of those guys that are well educated but chose to make a difference rather than stand around and spout things that would get me on television. I mean heck?Anyone that actually knew me knows that I used to tell the kids “Stay off the news!”

Anyways… The following is from the PATRIOT POST. As usual, someone else (more than one!) can explain things much better than my personal skills allow for, enjoy.

“Politics has its puzzling moments. John McCain and most of the GOP experienced one late last week. That was when five of their own set about dismantling the best issue Republicans have in the upcoming election. It’s taken time, but Sen. McCain and his party have finally found—in energy—an issue that’s working for them. Riding voter discontent over high gas prices, the GOP has made antidrilling Democrats this summer’s headlines. Their enthusiasm has given conservative candidates a boost in tough races. And Mr. McCain has pressured Barack Obama into an energy debate, where the Democrat has struggled to explain shifting and confused policy proposals. Still, it was probably too much to assume every Republican would work out that their side was winning this issue. And so, [on 1 August], in stumbled Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson—alongside five Senate Democrats. This ‘Gang of 10’ announced a ‘sweeping’ and ‘bipartisan’ energy plan to break Washington’s energy ‘stalemate.’ What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver. That’s because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast—putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska’s oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go. The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on… oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn’t have penned it better. And so the Republican Five has potentially given antidrilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November.” —Kimberley Strassel

And then there is…

“It’s always good to take a break from the madding crowd, but especially now that American politics has surpassed itself in self-mockery. After four days avoiding television, blogs, YouTube, and cell phones, it is possible to wonder how we get so exercised about the insignificant. Not that politics isn’t important. The debate about what role government should play in our lives is no small thing. And while we can’t all kick back at once and hope that our enemies work out their anger issues, a little perspective is salutary and productive in a fallow field kind of way… The family is what gives our life meaning and makes our nation strong. The family is also what keeps government at a respectful distance—working for us and not the other way around. All our political choices should be made in the service of that understanding. That’s all. And we’ve got work to do.” —Kathleen Parker

I ask you, is there not more important things to be considering? Well, no, not really, but this blatant assault on the intelligence of the American people needs to stop.

MARC, there are three mis-spells, find them, and complain! 😀

COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE HONORS RANCH OWNERS FOR CONSERVATION WORK

August 10, 2008

Former media magnate Malcolm Forbes was not only a leading innovator in magazine publishing; he also helped to pioneer private-land wildlife management practices in Colorado. To honor the Forbes family’s efforts in wildlife conservation, the Colorado Division of Wildlife recently thanked the Forbes Family for its nearly 40 years of work at the 173,000-acre Forbes-Trinchera and Forbes-Blanca Ranches in the San Luis Valley.

In the fall of 2007 the Forbes family sold the ranch to Louis Bacon, an East Coast resident who owns numerous other parcels of land throughout the United States which are managed for conservation and wildlife purposes. In Colorado, Bacon also owns the 20,000-acre Tercio Ranch that is located southwest of Trinidad.

Bacon has announced that his new property, located in the San Luis Valley, will now be called the Trinchera Ranch and the Blanca Ranch. It will continue to be managed for wildlife, natural resource and environmental values. The ranch  will continue to work cooperatively with the Division of Wildlife on various conservation projects and participate in the DOW’s Ranching for Wildlife program.

“The Colorado Division of Wildlife is grateful to the Forbes family for their wildlife conservation philosophy,” said Tom Spezze, southwest regional manager for the DOW.

“Not only did the family bring great ideas, but they hired an outstanding staff to do the work to make this one of the premier wildlife habitat areas in Colorado.”   Spezze made the remarks at a reception held at the Trinchera Ranch in late July.

Tom Remington, director of the DOW, praised the Forbes ranch for its work on a variety of projects that have helped conservation efforts throughout Colorado. These include: establishing a herd of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, re-introduction of Rio Grande cutthroat trout, and numerous habitat improvement projects aimed at helping big game populations.

“The ranch is a leader in wildlife conservation work,” Remington said. “The people here proved what can be done. Today, the division of wildlife uses many of the management techniques developed here in projects all over the state.”

Malcolm Forbes purchased the property in 1969 and decided quickly that wildlife should be a priority. Former DOW biologist Errol Ryland was hired to manage the property. Ryland and DOW staff developed the Ranching for Wildlife concept at the ranch. Today, 16 ranches that comprise more than 1 million acres of prime big game habitat participate in the Ranching for Wildlife program.

In the late 1980s, 3,000 domestic sheep were removed from the ranch and 34 Rocky Mountain bighorns were transplanted from British Columbia. Now the herd on the ranch numbers more than 300. Over the years, the ranch has allowed the DOW to trap sheep and move them to other parts of the state.

After Ryland retired in the early 1990s his son, Ty Ryland, took over as ranch manager.   In Dec. 2004, the Forbes family placed approximately 81,400  acres of the Trinchera Ranch under a permanent conservation easement. None of that land will ever be developed. Bacon is now considering placing a conservation easement on the 90,000-acre Blanca Ranch. This portion of the property contains three of Colorado’s 54 famed 14,000-foot mountains – Blanca Peak, Little Bear Peak and Mount Lindsey.

“Mr. Bacon believes that the Blanca Ranch is an unique property and it ought to be protected for future generations,” a spokesperson said.

Christopher Forbes, Malcolm Forbes son, said the family was pleased to find a new owner who was also conservation-minded.   “We couldn’t have found a better conservation steward in America than Louis Bacon,” Forbes said.

Bacon explained that continuing resource conservation on the property is his top priority for the ranch.

“I feel a duty to continue the conservation legacy established by the Forbes Family; and to help us we’ll continue working with the DOW,” Bacon said.

Bacon also said that staffing at the ranch won’t change. The ranch employs about 30 people in Costilla County.

Under the Ranching for Wildlife program, participating owners work to improve habitat, develop wildlife management plans with the DOW, and allow a limited number of public hunters at no charge. In exchange, ranch owners are allowed to set special seasons for private hunters.

Public licenses on the Trinchera Ranch include: 10 bull elk and 75 cow elk; 10 mule deer bucks and 75 does; two big horn rams and nine ewes. The ranch leads about 50 private hunters each year.

###

The Colorado Division of Wildlife is the state agency responsible for managing wildlife and its habitat, as well as providing wildlife related recreation. The Division is funded through hunting and fishing license fees, federal grants and Colorado Lottery proceeds through Great Outdoors Colorado.

For more information about Division of Wildlife go to: http://wildlife.state.co.us.

Mule Deer Study

August 10, 2008

DOW BIOLOGISTS STUDYING MULE DEER AGING

Early results of a mule deer aging study being conducted by the Colorado Division of Wildlife are helping provide insight into the trade-offs between hunt quality and hunting opportunity in southwest Colorado.

The DOW asked hunters to submit teeth from bucks harvested in Game Management Units 54, 61, 62, 80 and 81 during the 2007 big game season. Biologists determine the exact age of a mule deer by counting the annual growth rings present within an animal’s incisors. The DOW sent mailings to 2,065 hunters in 2007 explaining the project and asking them to send teeth from harvested bucks. Last year, 375 teeth were returned.

Biologists plan to continue this research for the next two hunting seasons.

“The return rate in 2007 gave us an excellent sample to start with,” said Brandon Diamond, a terrestrial biologist for the Colorado Division of Wildlife in Gunnison. “There are three management units involved in this project that have contrasting buck-to-doe ratio objectives. GMU 54 has the highest ratio followed by GMUs 61 and 62, and finally GMUs 80 and 81.”

The results show that the age structure of bucks harvested varies between the GMUs, as biologists anticipated. “The purpose of this study is to determine that in units where we manage for high buck-to-doe ratios that hunters actually are taking more older-age-class bucks,” Diamond said.

Biologists are interested in evaluating whether there is an optimum buck-to-doe ratio to which they can manage that maximizes both hunt quality and opportunity. “Hunters across the west love to see big mule deer bucks. But they also want the chance to hunt them on a regular basis. We are trying to find the best middle ground,” Diamond said.

GMU 54, just north of Gunnison, has in recent years become renowned for its mule deer. It is managed for a high buck-to-doe ratio of 40-45 bucks per 100 does; the 2007 post-hunt population estimate was approximately 7,500. Despite the tougher hunting conditions during the 2007 seasons due to unseasonably warm and dry weather, the first-year results of this project are really interesting, Diamond explained.

“In unit 54, the majority of hunters submitted teeth from bucks that were between 3-6 years old.  It appears we have a lot of bucks that are 4 years or older, which should be the case due to our management prescriptions.  Because of current management, hunters can be selective and they are seeing greater numbers of older bucks,” Diamond said.

In GMU 54, bucks up to 9 years old were harvested.

“Maintaining so many older-aged bucks, however, doesn’t come without sacrifice,” Diamond explains. “In many southwest Colorado deer units, deer hunters will have to sit on the sidelines for several years between hunts.

Many hunters would like to hunt deer every year and have the opportunity to harvest a buck four years old or older. The reality is that you can’t have it both ways.”

GMUs 61 and 62 are located on the Uncompahgre Plateau, west of Montrose. This area provides excellent deer habitat. The estimated population is 32,000, and the sex ratio is estimated at 35 bucks per 100 does. Teeth submitted from hunters in 2007 were predominately between 1 and 4 years old; however, some bucks as old as 9 years were harvested.

In GMUs 80 and 81 in the San Luis Valley the deer population is estimated at 5,900 with a buck-to-doe ratio of approximately 24 to 100. Most of the bucks harvested in the area were from 1 to 3 years old, with a few bucks as old as 7 years.

The DOW is urging hunters in these units to send in teeth from the harvested animals, particularly in GMUs 62 and 61 which had the lowest overall response in 2007. Overall, Diamond hopes to collect about 1,000 teeth as the study continues for the next two years. This project will also help managers evaluate the changes in mule deer populations following the severe winter of 2007-2008.

“We have made it as easy as possible to participate in this project, so hopefully hunters will take a few minutes to send in their tooth,” Diamond said. “The bigger the sample size, the more we’ll learn about how our deer management prescriptions are working.”

The DOW hopes to continue this project through the fall of 2009 so that three years of data are available for comparison.  For the 2008 season, hunters can expect age results by May or June of 2009.  Results will be posted on the Division of Wildlife’s website as soon as possible so that hunters may check the age of their individual deer on-line.

Hunters who have drawn tags in these units may receive an envelope and a letter of explanation before the start of the 2008 season. In some units, a sub-sample of hunters was selected to participate in the project, so not everyone will receive a mailing. Only those who harvest bucks are asked to send in teeth.

Thanks to a generous donation, hunters who send in teeth in 2008 will have a chance to win a rifle donated by the Mule Deer Foundation.

if you hunted in any of the units last year and you sent in teeth, you can check the age of your animal on the DOW web site. Go to: http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting/BigGame.

Hunters with questions can call Diamond at (970) 641-7071.

For more information about Division of Wildlife go to: http://wildlife.state.co.us.

Of mice, men, and politics

August 5, 2008

A viable new political party is often the subject at hand, all, or in part at various blogs such as Stiff Right Jab, TexasFreds, and here. This would be a serious, and difficult undertaking. I worked for ballot access here in Colorado, and it was difficult to say the least. That would be just one of many problems that would have to be overcome when establishing a serious alternative to the present situation. Certainly one should look to the past to learn about the things that would lay the ground work. Below is from the Patriot Post. It is worth the read…

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

Demonomic deja vu

By Mark Alexander

The current “change” in economic policy, as proposed by the latest protagonist of Leftist ideology, can best be summed up in the inimitable words of that great philosopher Yogi Berra: “It’s deja vu all over again.”

Politicos come and go, but the essential philosophical divergence between conservatives and liberals remains as stark today as ever. That disparity is most evident in how conservatives and liberals have always viewed the role of government, and its policies concerning taxation, spending and regulation.

While one may correctly argue that the majority of elected Republicans do not justly honor the conservative principles set forth in the Republican Party Platform, the majority of Democrats certainly march in lockstep behind their Leftist despots, and their electoral lemmings are close behind. (As George Bernard Shaw once noted, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.”)

So what informs the two distinctly different visions from the Right and Left?

Essentially, conservatives, as the root word implies, strive to conserve the principles outlined in our Constitution, and our vision for America requires robust support for individual liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional Judeo-Christian values.

On the other hand, the Left one, liberals, as the root word implies, aspire to liberate the nation from its founding tenets by promoting a “Living Constitution,” as a primary tool for constricting individual liberty, expanding the power of government, regulating all manner of enterprise, gutting national defense and advocating relativism.

Conservative economic policies are founded on the ideals of liberty and freedom advocated in the historic writings of Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say and John Stuart Mill, and further refined by such economists as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, and most recently, the late Milton Friedman. Economic liberty is embodied in the practice of free-enterprise capitalism, which functions best if largely unconstrained by government taxation and regulation.

These are the economic principles advocated by our founders.

As James Madison described it in his era: “[I]f industry and labour are left to take their own course, they will generally be directed to those objects which are the most productive, and this in a more certain and direct manner than the wisdom of the most enlightened legislature could point out.”

Madison certainly understood the threat of centralized government power, writing in Federalist No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” Madison noted further, “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

Anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson similarly observed: “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread. …[W]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another.” He noted correctly, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

Jefferson was clear on his disdain for taxes: “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

But the Left adheres to a very different group of economic philosophers.

Barack Hussein Obama’s economic plan is nothing more than a remake of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s class-warfare proclamation: “Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”

In fact, Roosevelt’s “principle” was no more American than Obama’s. Not to be confused with the biblical principle in the Gospel according to Luke, “From everyone who has been given much, much will be required…” (which, ironically, some Leftist do-gooders cite as justification for socialist policies), Roosevelt was essentially paraphrasing the gospel according to Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Jesus used parables to enlighten the heart, in this case, about our personal responsibility. Marxist methods are a bit more coercive—rejecting God and anointing the state as the supreme deity.

Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt’s “New Deal” paradigm shift, “We can’t expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.”

Perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas (the grandfather, incidentally, of Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas), echoed that sentiment: “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

We are much closer to that day in 2008.

Obama insists we have “an economy that is out of balance, tax policies have been badly skewed, and wages and incomes have flatlined.” To resolve this he says we need a “tax policy making sure that everybody benefits, fair distribution, a restoration of balance in our tax code, money allocated fairly—we’re going to capture some of the nation’s economic growth… and reinvest it.”

Obama says that free enterprise is nothing more than “Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself… tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity.”

Obamanomics is nothing more than a Marxist echo, and Obama himself a “useful idiot,” a Western apologist for socialist political and economic agendas advocating Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism.

Obama’s campaign theme, like that of all useful idiots before him, is built on “The Politics of Disparity,” class warfare.

Between now and Election Day, Obama will be faking right and looking centrist. He has been invoking his version of another Yogi Berra witticism, “I didn’t really say everything I said.”

Of course, Yogi also said, “You can observe a lot just by watchin’.” In deference our great national heritage and our Founder’s legacy of liberty, one would only hope that a majority of voting Americans are sufficiently observant to see through Obama’s deception.

(To compare U.S. tax tables since the implementation of the federal income tax in 1913, see Tax History 1913-2008. The Patriot also offers a comparison between the FairTax, Income Tax and Flat Tax. For additional constitutional context, read “To secure these rights…” on The Bill of Rights and A “Living Constitution for a Dying Republic”. For additional resources, see The Patriot’s Topical Essays and Policy Papers page and our Historic Documents page.)

Economic Schools of Thought

August 3, 2008

Whiskey and Gunpowder, two things that built this nation, and a rather good blog that I just discovered.

Greg’s Note: There is plenty of complex mathematics involved in high-level economic theory. But no matter how many advanced mathematics degrees you can obtain from Cal Tech or MIT, you may never have the grasp on economics as someone who truly understands the history and theory that goes into it. Lord William Rees-Mogg explains the limitations and strengths of these two different approaches to economic understanding and how well they fare when it comes to predicting economic occurrences. Which area of thought do you trust more? Let us know by writing to greg@whiskeyandgunpowder.com.

Whiskey & Gunpowder
July 17, 2008
By Lord William Rees-Mogg
London, England, U.K.


Two Schools of Thought

There are two ways of studying economic theory. One approach is mathematical, and has been much enhanced by the computing power available to the individual economist. The other is historical and relies on the accumulated understanding of economic theory and practice.

The events of 2007 and 2008 have shown the limitations of the mathematical method. The credit crunch was not foreseen by anyone that I read, but it came as a shock to the number crunchers — it took them completely by surprise.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~Special~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Myth of Abundant Oil

We’ve been told for years that oil would last forever. We especially hear this from the governments of many oil-producing countries.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. The many lies we’ve been told are finally being exposed, and we’re paying the price. What’s really going on here? Find out by clicking here

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It did not come as a shock to the economic historians, who happily settled down to discuss the resemblances between this credit crisis and earlier ones, going back to the South Sea Scheme in 1720 or the Wall Street Panic of 1907. The economic historians know that similar events had happened before, and had also learned, often by painful experience, that such events are quite common.

Neither group foresaw the actual events of August 2007, but the historians were quite able to put the credit crisis in a context of other crises. Even though both groups were taken by surprise, it was the mathematicians whose previous forecasts were stood on their heads.

By and large, historical economists, who follow the example of major English economists such as Maynard Keynes or W.S. Jevons, do not regard timing as any more predictable for economic shocks than for earthquakes.

One can say that there is a build up of stress in the system that will eventually have to be released. One cannot say that the release of pressure will occur next Tuesday or next August or even next century.

Some say the big earthquake will happen along the San Andreas Fault in California. It may come tomorrow; it may come before 2050; it may not happen for 500 years. We can usefully predict what and where, but we can very seldom predict when. This makes expectation difficult to quantify, though all markets are based on expectations

What we do know from economic history is that there is a cycle of debt that has to be relieved. In twentieth century history the war debts of the first war played their malign part in the European depression of the 1920s and eventually in the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Austrian School of Economics, and particularly Friedrich von Hayek, developed the Debt-Deflation theory of the business cycles. Hayek indeed foresaw the risk of a deflationary crisis as early as 1927.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~Special~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Making Money in a Floundering Market

Investing in the stock market is tricky these days. There are still good investments out there that will pay off, but the gains you can expect will be modest at best.

That’s why, in times of trouble, simply learning a new technique can double and even triple your gains. What technique is it? Click here to find out…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Keynesian economics, as expounded in his General Theory, 1936, were criticised at the time for an inadequate appreciation of the negative aspects of excessive debt. Bankers of the Gold Standard era attached great importance to the balance sheet rather than the profit and loss account. I get the impression nowadays that people read the current account much more carefully than they do the capital account — partly because they think that off balance sheet financing has reduced the transparency of the balance sheet itself.

As a result, government balance sheets, bank balance sheets, corporate balance sheets and personal balance sheets have all deteriorated. Finance ultimately depends on the security of capital, and weak balance sheets, at any level, are exposed to risk and to problems of opportunity cost.

An old-fashioned banker would now be calling for strengthening of balance sheets at every level. But the liquidation of debt takes years to accomplish and diverts fund from current consumption. The 2007 credit crunch calls for liquidation of debt, but that is bound to have a deflationary effect.

Regards,
Lord William Rees-Mogg

Greg’s Endnote: Until we do have a liquidation of debt, we won’t be feeling the deflationary period that Rees-Mogg mentioned. We are still going through a period of inflation with commodity prices rising while the dollar loses its value quickly. Sure, we’ve all seen the news stories written about oil prices and gold prices. But did you know that there is an investment out there that’s actually better than gold? Click here to find out what it is…

Tarzan and monatary policy

August 3, 2008

stolen from

From fiat money imposed upon us all by President Nixion we have, among other things, the following assessment.

“The US DOLLAR INDEX rallied today 31 basis points to close slightly over 72 at 72.042. Yaaawn. We’ve seen this act before. Does it mean anything? Who knows? Nobody has accused the dollar of sincerity recently.

Remember the scenes from the old Tarzan movies? Walking through the jungle, all the bearers suddenly grow quiet. They cock their heads. The safari leader, clutching his rifle, asks the lead bearer, “What is it, Mbwezi?” Dimly in the distance the throb of drums grows louder. The female star creeps closer to the safari leader, grabbing his arm and scooting behind him. The drums throb louder. The bearers drop their loads.

Now if you’ve seen one Tarzan movie, you know that the Ngali, the most bloodthirsty tribe in all of Africa who specialize in dicing their victims while still alive, are about to attack. You know that unless Tarzan shows up pretty soon, the entire safari will be salsa.

That scene is where the US dollar is right now, hiding behind safari leaders Bwana Ben and Bwana Paulson, while the wild tribes of bond & currency Ngali circle in the jungle, waiting for their chance to bring down the whole safari. Can’t you hear the drums throbbing in the distance? Bad juju.”

At times I wonder if monatary policy is actually a form of anarchisim these days.

Two Schools of Thought!

July 28, 2008

There are two ways of studying economic theory. One approach is mathematical, and has been much enhanced by the computing power available to the individual economist. The other is historical and relies on the accumulated understanding of economic theory and practice.

The events of 2007 and 2008 have shown the limitations of the mathematical method. The credit crunch was not foreseen by anyone that I read, but it came as a shock to the number crunchers — it took them completely by surprise.

It did not come as a shock to the economic historians, who happily settled down to discuss the resemblances between this credit crisis and earlier ones, going back to the South Sea Scheme in 1720 or the Wall Street Panic of 1907. The economic historians know that similar events had happened before, and had also learned, often by painful experience, that such events are quite common.

Neither group foresaw the actual events of August 2007, but the historians were quite able to put the credit crisis in a context of other crises. Even though both groups were taken by surprise, it was the mathematicians whose previous forecasts were stood on their heads.

By and large, historical economists, who follow the example of major English economists such as Maynard Keynes or W.S. Jevons, do not regard timing as any more predictable for economic shocks than for earthquakes.

One can say that there is a build up of stress in the system that will eventually have to be released. One cannot say that the release of pressure will occur next Tuesday or next August or even next century.

Some say the big earthquake will happen along the San Andreas Fault in California. It may come tomorrow; it may come before 2050; it may not happen for 500 years. We can usefully predict what and where, but we can very seldom predict when. This makes expectation difficult to quantify, though all markets are based on expectations

What we do know from economic history is that there is a cycle of debt that has to be relieved. In twentieth century history the war debts of the first war played their malign part in the European depression of the 1920s and eventually in the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Austrian School of Economics, and particularly Friedrich von Hayek, developed the Debt-Deflation theory of the business cycles. Hayek indeed foresaw the risk of a deflationary crisis as early as 1927.

Keynesian economics, as expounded in his General Theory, 1936, were criticised at the time for an inadequate appreciation of the negative aspects of excessive debt. Bankers of the Gold Standard era attached great importance to the balance sheet rather than the profit and loss account. I get the impression nowadays that people read the current account much more carefully than they do the capital account — partly because they think that off balance sheet financing has reduced the transparency of the balance sheet itself.

As a result, government balance sheets, bank balance sheets, corporate balance sheets and personal balance sheets have all deteriorated. Finance ultimately depends on the security of capital, and weak balance sheets, at any level, are exposed to risk and to problems of opportunity cost.

An old-fashioned banker would now be calling for strengthening of balance sheets at every level. But the liquidation of debt takes years to accomplish and diverts fund from current consumption. The 2007 credit crunch calls for liquidation of debt, but that is bound to have a deflationary effect.

Regards,
Lord William Rees-Mogg

Economic Schools of Thought

Stolen from